Skip to main content

About your Search

20120601
20120630
SHOW
Book TV 105
Hannity 90
Today 82
( more )
STATION
CSPAN3 759
FOXNEWSW 493
CNNW 475
FOXNEWS 469
MSNBCW 452
MSNBC 431
CNN 400
SFGTV2 330
CSPAN2 261
CSPAN 260
SFGTV 240
CNBC 169
CURRENT 156
KQED (PBS) 135
WUSA (CBS) 135
WJZ (CBS) 125
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 6887
Korean 3
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 6,899 (some duplicates have been removed)
a difference. i mean, the goal is to have the united states become the leader in clean energy the same bay we were and are in internet technology and have the future googles whether it's smart grid or the newest most efficient solar modules or wind turbines come out of the u.s. and be world leaders because it is a world market. >> let's jump to the audience.
years ago that the president asked me to represent the united states in opposition to the law of the sea treaty. our efforts found a supporter in british prime minister margaret thatcher. today as the senate approves this agreement, the reasons for their opposition, i believe remain as persuasive. when i met with mrs. thatcher, she grasps the issues at stake. her conclusion on the treaty was unforgettable. she said what this treaty proposes is nothing less than the international nationalization of roughly 2/3 of the earth's surface and referring to her battles dismantling the state-owned mining and utility companies, shedded you know how i feel about nationalization. the nashl idea underlying the law of the sea treaty is that the riches of the oceans beyond national boundaries are the common heritage of mankind. thus supposedly owned by all people and actually means they are unowned. this idea of ownership should which is encompassed requires that anyone who finds a way to make use of such riches by applying labor or technology or risk taking are required to pay royalties of unknown amou
, the goal is to have the united states become the leader in clean energy the same bay we were and are in internet technology and have the future
is holding a forum on growing income inequality many the united states and the role of government in addressing the issue. supreme court justice ruth bader ginsberg will be speaking to the gathering at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and you can see it live on our companion network c-span. >>> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend on book tv, follow david on his journey walking in a president's footsteps. for barack obama the story. sunday starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern, a video record of his travels. then live at 7:30 he takes your calls and questions. also this weekend on afterwards, conservative commentator blames liberals for an ongoing war on ideas using the tyranny of cliches. >> american politics have been distorded by this idea that the further you move away from the left the closer you get to bad things. one of the bad things is fashist, another one is racist, homophobic, sexist. the best working definition is a conservative who's winning an argument. >> that's sunday night at 9:00 on book tv. this weekend on c-span2. >>> the story behind the star span
, it would be a terrible mistake because change is taking place. so the job the united states of america should have, in my view, is to help channel this and assist these people who are seeking the things that we have always held as our responsibilities and our duty that all of us are endowed with certain rights. so when i travel, i will be traveling at taxpayers' expense this break. and i'll be, among other things, going to observe the elections on july 7th in libya. libya has a long way to go. but 80% of the people in libya have registered to vote. i will predict to you a massive voter turnout. contrast this with what commentators on far right and far left said. at the time we were assisting the libyan people's legitimate rights in their struggle against moammar gadhafi. and that was oh, it's probably al qaeda. we don't know who they are. probably al qaeda. we don't know who they are. the united states shouldn't be involved. we should be involved. we should be involved. and yes there's going to be rocky times in these countries. the latest election in egypt brings great uncertainties a
the united states, britain, swed sweden, documents countless acts of terror perpetrated against the afghan people. >> 25 years later the former speaker was honored on the house floor by republican and democratic leaders. watch those tributes or any part of her career in the house online at the c-span video library. >>> up next, a three-part forum hosted by usa i.d. on u.s. foreign assistance and development. first we'll hear remarks from outgoing republican senator dick luger. that's outgoing republican senator dick luger. during his 20 minutes remarks he talks that u.s. foreign aid money is going to climate change programs over traditional education or food assistance programs. after that, we'll hear from the presidents of liberia, malawi and kosovo on developing their countries and a discussion on relief work in afghanistan, haiti, somalia and iran. dick luger is introduced by ravij shah. >> thank you for that introduction and hosting us for these next few days but for the deep and meaningful relationship that georgetown has displayed in partnering to produce frontiers in development. it
was in the united states senate and i know his background. it's extraordinary. he comes from colorado, a family that farmed and ranched. one of eight children. all eight kids went and got a college degree. i won't describe what the rest of them have done, but it's quite extraordinary what this family has produced, and secretary salazar went off to become a businessman, and a rancher and a farmer, and then attorney general for the state of colorado. then united states senator, and then secretary of the interior. it really is, truly, an all-american story. and as a member of the senate democratic leadership, whenever we were confabbing and trying to figure out what comes to the floor, who's going to be where, who's vote what, the question was always raised, well, where is salazar on this? and the answer was, we don't know. and the reason is that this is truly, i think bonbon it would agree, this is really one of those senators who came to the united states senate to try to fig are out how do we advance the country's interests? not republican/democrat. how do we find a way through this to reach ag
power to bilaterally leverage some of the country. if the united states is at the table and there's a unit, there's a whole different equation that chinese have to take into account. virtue of -- it advantage s us for the chinese to be out. they have been ribbed and kind of made fun of in various meetings when the subject comes up because we're not a member. they look and say you're not a member. you don't have standing to bring this up. people need to weigh that as we go forward here. >> admiral papp, we sit here every day and it isn't often that our intelligence is insulted but for you to come here and tell us that we can't resolve a border dispute with canada because we're not a member of this law of the sea treaty really does that. i'm sorry that you chose to go down that route because i think those kinds of representations really undermine the statements and the logical arguments made by others who want to see this treaty authorized. i was surprised as all of you testified that the south china sea wasn't mentioned until we got to admiral locklear. i was going to go down the s
in upper canada were people born within the united states. and when american forces invade upper canada, their experience will be that of a civil war in that these people will divide and some of them will fight for the united states and some of them would fight against the united states and they would end up fighting against one another. >> why did u.s. forces invade canada? >> the united states was offended with the british empire for a couple of reasons. one is they were meddling with american shipping on the high seas and then they were also aligning with native peoples to the west. americans persuaded themselves that an invasion of canada would at the very least break up the british alliance with the indian people because canada served as supply bases for native people living on the united states and the canadian side of the border. they also believed it would be the cheapest way to put pressure on the british, cheaper than building a proper navy and so for those two reasons they target canada for invasion in this war. >> the full title of your book is "civil war of 1812 american ci
is truly in the best interest of the united states. today the u.s. relies on oil and natural gas for over 60% of all of the energy that we consume. recent projections of our own department of energy in the obama administration shows that 60% of the energy we consume will continue to be oil and natural gas. other projections show the demand for world global energy will increase by over 50% in the next 20 to 30 years enjergy is very serious issue particularly to our global economy. the company spent years looking for and producing natural gas from around the world. from 2008 to 2011, the industry spent over $700 billion in the united states drilling and exploring for additional opportunities. just last week, the u.s. oil and gas industry paid $1.7 billion in bonus fits to the federal government to secure rights to develop the resources in the gulf of mexico. preliminary studies estimate that the u.s. extended continental shelf as a result of the law of the sea treaty likely totals one million square kilometers and could contain resources billions if not trillions of collars to the u.s. econ
between the united states embassy and british high commissions, this documented the culture heritage. i althoughs -- i also want to thank all of the member offense the war 1812 bicentennial commission, chip mason, senator paul sharba, all of those are friends from underarmor, ball lard bar, so many other people including our sponsors who have made this weekend such an outstanding kick off. on behalf of the people of baltimore and the people of md hit drama, we are on no -- people of maryland, we are honored to usher in this bicentennial commemoration of the war of 1812. very shortly we will sign a declaration of peace, of our people's coming together as we have for the better part of our more than 2030-year history together with our neighbors in canada, our neighbors in great britain. i want to thank the commanders of nine other nations whose people sent their beautiful tal ships and crew -- tall ships and crews to be a part of this commemoration. i would like to thank each of you. >> [applause] >> we are kicking off what will be a 2 year celebration. i want to thank the united states n
, the syrian opposition needs to know that the united states stands with them. and that we're willing to take risks to support them when they need it most. our current inaction only denies us the opportunity to have influence with the forces in syria who will one day inherit the country. and we are ceding that influence to foreign states that may not always share our interest and our values, or worse to extremist groups that may not always share that are hostile to us. our lack of involvement in syria is not preventing the militarization of the conflict or lessening the risk of sectarian violence or countering the appeal of extremist groups. all of these events are just happening without us. and without our ability to influence them. in short, the main reason the united states needs to get more involved in syria is to help the opposition end the conflict sooner while they can still secure an outcome that is consistent with their goals and ours. we should do so not simple police for humanitarian reasons, but because it is in our national security interests. in the words of general james maddie
opportunities investments and practices about which you would liberate. the united states continues zs struggle with growth and unemployment of more than 8%. national debt today is approaching $16 trillion. efforts to contain and reverse our budget spiral are complicated. efforts of lengthening military engagements and sometimes parting in politics. partners in global development face greater economic circumstances. amid these financial threats and budget tri realities, some will question the role of development and a few members of congress argue that all foreign assistance should be eliminated. larger number will preserve the assistance and would sharply downsize most development aid. almost everyone agrees it will be constrained for the foreseeable future. planners must try to squeeze the maximum value out of every dollar available. i would assert this morning that development assistance remains that for our own economic and moral standing in the world. even in the worst of times the united states remains a wealthy nation with interests in every corner of the globe. it is a key comcomponent
could change to some degree if the united states would lead. it used to be the united states leads from behind. now, the united states does not lead at all. >> michael gunter, tennessee tech university, cookeville, tennessee. >> i know the city. my in-laws live there. >> i know that. senator, you mentioned -- >> my son's wife's parents, i'm sorry, i didn't -- >> you mentioned briefly the kurdish situation in turkey which has been going on in its current form for over 30 years. could you go into a little further detail about what you think turkey should do to further a solution to the kurdish problem? >> the first thing that's happened, and i think it's worthwhile mentioning, if you go to urbile, you will see a modern, thriving, dynamic economy. you will see shopping centers, multiplexes. it's incredible what has happened to the kurdish economy over the last 25 years since they were once living in the mountains. it's been incredible. and it has been the turkish influence economically that has been the driver. all of these places that i'm talking about are turkish investment and partnersh
of congress and signed by the president of the united states. earlier this month you went on national television and called the attorney general the nation's highest ranking chief law enforcement officer a liar. at the same time, you refused requests to hold a public hearing with ken melson, the former head of atf, the agency responsible for conducting these operations. this refusal came after mr. melson told the committee investigators privately that he never informed senior officials at the justice department about gun walking during operation fast and furious because he was unaware himself. last night, you flatly rejected the attorney general's offer. you refused to even commit to working towards a mutually agreeable resolution. instead, you rushed to a prearranged press conference to announce the failure of the meeting. it seems clear that you had no interest in resolving this issue and that the committee planned to go forward with contempt before we walked into the meeting with the attorney general. it pains me to say this but this is what i believe. this is especially disappoint
[ drum roll ] [ "taps" ] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, captain gary w. core, united states navy will offer the invocation. >> please join me in prayer. eternal god, today we render honor to our veterans and those who sacrificed their very lives at the battle of midway, 70 years ago. we give thanks for their courage, faith, and valor, that led them to victory. as we have learned many lessons from our past, help us leverage knowledge and wisdom for our present day and for our future. gracious god, you who have given us this good land for our heritage, we humbly ask that you work with us, in us, and through all our endeavors that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of your favor and glad to do your holy will. defend our liberties and fashion us into one united people. the multitudes brought to us from many kindreds and tons that while we build diversity we may strengthen our common bonds in unity of effort. bless our navy leaders with the spirit of wisdom as in whom thy name we entrust the authority of command. as they lead our navy that we may successfully fulfill our m
in the united states about what these changes in turkey mean. we've heard it said that turkey is embracing islam at the expense of secularism and that its turning its back on the western favor of the east and that u.s.-turkish cooperations are with more intense rivalry, some commentators have asked, quote, who lost turkey and much of the recent debate about turkey has missed the point. it tends to roamant size the past and misread the present. the fact is turkey is changing and the nature of our alliance is changing with it. nonetheless, there's every r reason to believe that these changes could be and should be for the better. indeed, we now have an opportunity to fundamentally transform our alliance to make a broader, deeper, more durable and more relevant, in short, to make it one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world for both our countries. no one should expect this to be easy. it won't be, nor does it mean that we will cease to have our disagreements. these will persist, but if we remain guided by a few core principle, we can succeed in transforming our alliance. one of
. in the history of the united states and depending how you define it in the history of modern democrat see's period and that makes it fascinating to find out if the public has a say in this war because there is a president who is elected and this is a democracy and he's answerable to the public, let's think about how you debate the meaning of the war and how public opinion is shaped and what's the culture that surrounds patriotism in this period. >> that term, passions of patriot echl, what does that mean to you. if you think about it, passion of patriotism, what are the emotions that are underneath patriotism? in the era of 1812 people were very interested in passion and they were interested in passion for two reasons. they thought passions were what really kind of stirred the soul and motivated people to take action and take forceful action. so if you were going to be an effective patriot you had to be a passionate patriot. at the same time the war of 1812 was very kohno tro veshl particularly at its inception. it became quite popular and it was controversial at the outset and opposed by
fact. exceeding could expose the united states to baseless lawsuits. they are full-time, not subject to appeal and are enforceable in the united states. finally, in regard to u.s. rights to mine the deep seabed we know the following facts. pursuant to u.s. law, long standing u.s. policy and customary international law, u.s. persons and corporations have the right to explore and exploit the deep seabed regardless of whether or not the united states is a part. these are the facts. collectively they indicate there are real costs and foreseeable risks that the u.s. will undertake if it joins the convention. proponents claim there are no costs whatsoever. the u.s. will only enjoy benefits for membership. if only the u.s. would join the convention, everything would work out just fine. in light of the facts, i believe it's the proponents claims that are based in methodology and blind faith. thank you again for inviting me to testify today. i look forward to any questions that you have. >> thank you very much. i really appreciate it. that's a good articulate position of the summary. i'm thri
voting to give the united states the predominant voice. one, that we're a permanent member of the council so that we're the only country that's a permanent member of the council and, two, that the council has to be the ones to make decisions on administrative or financial matters, and on the sentence where you just read where ultimately there is not agreement and it gets referred back, it's -- you did not mention the clause that says, and this is in section 3, paragraph 5, except where the convention provides for decisions by consensus in the council, and so the united states is always in the council. we're always the permanent member. section 3, paragraph 2 says the decision makes and the organs of authority should be by consensus. the clause there says that except where the convention provides for decisions by consensus in the council which refers to administrative, budgetary or financial matters, so the u.s. would have a veto over any decision relating to administrative, budgetary or financial matters which would include the distribution of fees so that's why we believe the bush admini
or part 11, which was the subsequent amendment the united states proposed is that? >> that but also i think in '94 on page 272 section 3, decision making, it actually gave us protection. i'll read it to you. decisions of the assembly -- and this goes to mr. grove's decertains" about the -- what we achieved in '94 through the the implementing agreement, which is very important, made clear the assembly is not permitted to take action on any matter within the competence of the council, unless the council has first recommended that the simably do so. so the council controls the agenda. now, let me read right out of it. decisions of the assembly on any matter for which the would you know and that is the des contributi -- any decision on any administrative or budgetary matter shall be based on the recommendation of the council. if the assembly does not accept the recommendation of the council on any matter, it shall return the matter to the council for further consideration. the council shall reconsider the matter in the light of the views expressed by the assembly. in other words, it round
and the roots of pluralism in the united states. this one hour and 15-minute class took place at ball state university in indiana. watch more history lectures every saturday at 8:00 pm and midnight eastern and sundays at 1:00 pm. >> all right. on tuesday in class, we looked at the social question in europe. and one of the things we talk about is the ways in which european governments attempted to appease the working classes, reduce social tension. one of the tools they used was mass politics, we talked about. that's also something that's going on in the united states. in the united states, that process takes on a much different context. and the main reason for that is that in the u.s., you have universal white male suffrage by about 18 20. unlike in europe where it is france and the 1870s and other countries later on, in the u.s. you have basically full mass democracy very early on and you have it before most immigrants show up. so, when immigrants begin to be integrated into american society and particularly when they begin to be integrated into american politics, they're being integrated
, and the united states. we have 14 million people living in indonesia. now we are the third largest democratic country, after india, the united states, and indonesia. we are a member of the g-20 and the strongest economy in the south the asian nations. we are one of the great emerging economies. we have made a lot of changes since i was young. i am not young anymore. one of the biggest moments i have ever had in my life was during 1997, after 30 years of totalitarian from my former president. he sat down in 1997 and retrieved from the author -- from the authoritarian countries the democracy. it has changed a lot in my life. >> it kind of exploded, right? >> exactly. freedom of speech, freedom of prayer, it is sort of like euphoria. as optimists we face the world. today indonesia is in the best shape ever. >> i want to talk to you in our conversation today about being a muslim woman. obviously, followers of islam. a large percentage in indonesia, right? >> we have 240 million people. 86% is muslim. but we have also christian catholic, hindu, and more. we are the most majority muslim country. mo
and trade representative for the united states of america, with the rank of ambassador. rob portman then was elected in 2010 to the u.s. senate. no matter where he has been, he has done a stand-up job. these assignments and titles are not what makes him one of at thiss finest leaders important time in our history. it is that he has a sense of what martin luther king called "the fierce urgency of now." he has a deep understanding and appreciation that you cannot sit up the sidelines -- at the sidelines. he must look at -- look for the better angels in your fellow americans. here is the guy who will light candles throughout the rest of his career in whatever position he holds so that we, together as americans, can punch holes in the darkness of our times. my friend, come fourth because i have an award to give you before you enlighten us on what you see as the future of our country. senator rob portman. [applause] i am honored to present on behalf of the faith and freedom coalition this "friend of a free and" award to center rob portman for his outstanding work in the 104th congress. >
of the united states. lee's ascension to command of the army in northern virginia during that campaign must be reckoned one of the great turning points of the war, one of the great moments of decision of the war, not only for the revolution that lee would bring in confederate expectations of victory but also because his skill and his skill alone probably lengthened the conflict by more than two years which in turn made possible the addition of emancipation to union as a condition for eventual peace. my second example concerns the process of emancipation. this top has provoked considerable debate among historians who assessed the roles of abraham lincoln, the united states congress and african-americans who sees freedom by running away from farms and plantations to areas under union control. the concept of self emancipation has been at the center of much of this debate. its advocates saying that lincoln, the great emancipator has been given far too much credit in the past, that most of the credit should go to the slaves themselves for having the key role of killing the institution, by their
, and those who wonder what happened. i do not want to see the united states or our navy or coast guard wondering what happened when key decisions, potentially december ri detrimental to our sovereignty, are made in our absence by the 161 members of the treaty. our recommendations to join reflect nearly two decades of military leaders who have studied this problem closely and arrived at the same conclusion, ratification is in our best interests. today i join the officers including every chairman of the joint chiefs since 1994 in giving my support to the law of the sea convention and asking for your advice and consent. i thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning and i look forward to your questions. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. admiral greenhart? >> thank you, chairman kerry, ranking member lugar, distinguished members of the committee. i'm honored to appear before you to discuss the law of the sea convention. you'll have to excuse me, i have a little bit of laryngitis, but i'll get through this. this morning i'd like to make three points if i may. nu
goods, imported to or exported and from the united states including essential, and while we can always rely on the u.s. navy to ensure lawful passage of u.s. flagged and owned shirngs the chamber strongly supports the navy's desire to codify rights to freed ocom of navigat and the treaty rather than rely on the customary international law or strong navy. let me say a word about a seat at the table. the treaty is critical to america's global leadership. as the world's preeminent maritime power with one of the largest continental shelves, the u.s. has more than any other country to gain or to lose based on how the treaty's terms are enter pr interpreted applied or changed. it will form the basis of the maritime law with or without our approval, our nation's interests are being enacted by being an active participant. there's a lot of comment and suggestion that this organization is set up in jamaica is going to run our lives. it clearly is not, but what a mistake we make if we don't join the treaty and put our representative there who would have the absolute power to veto any action sugge
and water, desperate for teh united states. they were rescued where they were completely desperate to be saved. after he arrived in the united states, his mother was diagnosed with cancer. orlando was raised by the translator that cared for them while his mother was in the hospital. he wanted to go to the coast guard academy said that he could help reorganization that saved him at sea. then he will begin work on a cutter defending against criminals, narcotics smugglers and others who would do the u.s. harm and he will, in no doubt, encounter refugees like he was adrift at sea. orlando decided to stick around, make a difference, fulfill the promise, give back, make a difference. there are so many people like him than there are like eduardo saverin, who renounced his citizenship, so he would not be bound by those promises are obligations not just in monetary terms but in the compact of shared responsibility. citizenship means more than just a title, more than just physically being here or sticking around. it means emotionally committing with the passion and perseverance that is demon
exploited their equipment to germany, the united states, and elsewhere for years. the chinese wind turbine and other clean tech investors have remained confined to the domestic market. in coming months, we anticipate chinese power companies and banks developing and clean energy problems abroad. not only in the united states but in europe and in emerging markets, particularly in latin america. at the same time, american and european clean companies continue to sell their products and technology to china and partner with chinese companies as they go overseas. the trade flow and clean energy between the united states and china only increase in the future and it will be a two-way street. however, unlike the break neck pace, it's been slow and cautious, a trickle and not a flood. thank you for your time and attention. i welcome your comments questions and comments. >> thank you very much. mr. wolff, go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, murkowski, members of the committee. your hearing today on china and clean energy is both timely and important. china is outinvesting the united states an
and attended school in new deli and finished high school in mexico city before move together united states. truly an international citizens joining us tonight. with that of a quick introduction of the speaker. she is an international economist. she is the author of "the new york times" best seller dead a. why it is not working and how there is a better way for africa. she also just let me know that her new book is just hit the best seller list yesterday, i believe. in 2009, missouri ya was named by time magazine as one of the most influential people in the world. she's regularly published in the "financial times," the economist magazine and the "the wall street journal." she excluded an ph.d. please join me in welcoming dambisa moyo to the stage. [applause] >> thank you. hello, good evening. i'm not sure i like the moyowac. maybe they dropped the is wack. in any case, it's a pleasure to be in seattle. it's a first time of many, many visits here it is absolutely freezing cold. so i'm a disappointed about that. thank you to the host and world affairs counsel and microsoft. we appreciate the
, that the plurality up here is highly significant. >> the energy opportunities in the united states today are of game changing proportions. an economist just a few months ago said within the next decade in the u.s. policy is done well, we will become the new middle east for energy production. i think there's two dimensions to this answer. the first is we need to think long term. we need to look at things and see how do we secure our energy future. not only the next 10 to 20 years, but the next 50 to 100 years. oil and natural gas will continue to be the foundation energy building block for many decades yet to come. even as we strive to move to alternative renewable forms, and other less emitting forms of energy. the second dimension we shouldn't overlook, and it goes back to the senator's point earlier, we have to get ourself back as a country in our own political will and ability to produce our own energy. we can secure the border. we can secure the long-term future through the law of the sea, but we've got to have processes within the united states where we say energy is a priority. producing clean
as a united states attorney back in the late 1970's, i probably had one case that had some ramifications outside of this district. now, i would say it is probably the reverse. nine out of 10 cases intersect with persons in other jurisdictions, whether it be within the united states or internationally. what happens is, regardless of whether it is pakistan or a number of countries you could mention where we have diverging interests, there are also interests that pull us together. in pakistan, we have got good relationships at a number of levels. it is a much more difficult relationship that perhaps the highest levels, but we still have good relationships with certain counterparts over there, as we do with a number of countries. i cannot praise and of the work that has been done by our sister agencies in addressing the threat of terrorism worldwide. we are safer today as a country because of efforts that have been undertaken by those entities, whether it be in pakistan, afghanistan, and other areas around the world. >> there has been a lot of attention both inside and outside government inv
for the united states and turkey in a very troubled part of the world. i am sure ambassador in the dividend to 21 would agree that it didn't work that way in 2005 to 202007 or 2009-2010. the disagreement over iraq in 2003 was an important watershed in the region. we dominated u.s./turkish relations from march of 2003 to before that. at least until the end of the george bush administration. sharp disagreements. the disagreement over the invasion of iraq is not going away. rob bits that remain in u.s./turkish relations related to the iraq problem and the pkk presence in iraq. sharp disagreements over iran and i was struck in 2005 by a limited extent, and bilateral discussions and for period we were able to get our kids -- power things reasonably in sync but things fell apart in 2010. the huge disconnect. whatever the sequence of events a huge and profound dissonance between our two countries. disagreements on a range of other kyushu's in 2005 prior to my going to turkey. in the united states and turkey for 2005-2004, plans to visit damascus as part of turkey's out reach to president assad who so ma
there was a very good chance the majority of people in united states were going to say that's it. which is why that was the most fraught moment of the war for the united states. forget gettysburg as the great turning point. of course it wasn't. the summer of '64 is as close as the confederates came. a long time after the supposed great turning point in the summer of 1863. there are tremendous links between politics and military affairs. i'll give you one example -- no, i'm going to give you two. we have a digital clock here. i know exactly how many minutes, seconds an seconds i have left. nothing left to chance in this conference. there's a trap door right underneath me, too. so you'll be out of here by 5:00, maybe even a little bit before. i want to give you two examples of these linkages. the first is the bloody stalemate -- the apparent stalemate in virginia and georgia during the summer of 1864, the incredibly bloody summer of 1864. grant and sherman seemingly bogged down, threatened republican prospects in the elections of 1864. prompting lincoln's pessimistic blind memorandum in august t
, dismantle and ultimately defeat a foe that brought great terror and death to the united states on september 11th, 2001, and that has perpetrated acts of terrorism against innocent civilians around the globe. >> you said that his breadth of experience would be difficult to replace, but organization has shown that it can get a warm body wherever it fields to and continually regenerate. what is it about him that makes him -- made him particular ly valuable? >> i think he was very much an operational leader, general manager of al qaeda, with a range of experience that is hard to replicate. i think that it is a job that's hard to fill and that there may not be, given the duration of late that people have held that job, that there could be a lot of candidates hoping to fill. so the point is that removing leaders like al libbi from the very top of al qaeda is part of an ongoing effort to disrupt and dismantle and ultimately defeat al qaeda, and that is an important piece of business. yes, reuters. >> jay, with the crisis in europe deepening by the day, can you talk about what the president's been
group over suing the united states and taxing the united states and also can you tell me of incidences where the imo has not answered these problems we've been talking about to your satisfaction? >> thank you very much, senator inhofe, for putting it on the table. do you want to respond, general? >> first of all, it's good to see you again. there was an awful lot in the conversations. >> up to now. >> even now, with respect. there's an awful lot in the question and we have to have a detailed one-on-one conversation. i'm not sure if it's a tax as opposed to a royalty and i think a lot of these guys are not investing in these areas because they're worried they don't have the underpinning of the law to protect them and so it's money that's not there because they're not drawing the natural resources that perhaps we as a nation would like to see them draw. if we did, of course, we would be able to get the royalties in the range that i discussed and of course, 7% would represent more than 50% of the royalties we would otherwise be entitled to. >> depending on the range and we'd be down to ce
resources from the ocean seabed. and that is worth enormous competitive advantage to the united states of america and it is worth enormous numbers of jobs. but secondly, there is a very significant national security component to this. and we've asked as many of the different commanders to come here because each of them, in their own way, will have an ability to be able to share with america their individual reasons. and there are individual reasons. they differ in some cases. what is most important to them about passage of this treaty? and in its sum total, it is a compelling rationale for why this is in america's interest. and the committee this afternoon will have another hearing. we'll have some opponents of the treaty there and we'll have others who want to come in and oppose it, because we think it's very, very important. senator lugar and i are committed to hear from everybody. so the senate can build the strongest record possible and then act in its hopeful wisdom based on facts and based on that record that is compiled here. we've heard from secretary of state hillary clinton.
on competitiveness and collaboration issues between the united states and china related to clean energy. the hearing follows a trip that i took to china in april to try to learn about chinese policies and incentives to deploy clean energy. my staff and i visited hong kong and shenzhen and beijing to talk about investors and business representatives and government officials. on that trip i was impressed by the vast combination of financial investments and government partnerships with industry to deploy clean energy. china is rapidly developing and although much of its growth is dominated by coal and fossil fuels, the chinese government has combined a mix of financial incentives with government policies to promote the clean energy sector as well. that sector is not only developing domestically in china, it's also extending abroad. it's influencing the united states very directly and european markets. the situation in china is in direct contrast to the approach to clean energy that we have taken here in the united states. many of our efforts to promote clean tech in the united states are addressed in a
that at this point the united states and the rest of the international community are aligned with russia and china in their positions, but i do think they recognize the grave day, of all-out civil war. i do not think they condone the massacres that we have witnessed. and i think they believe that everybody would be better served if syria had a mechanism for ceasing the violence and creating a legitimate government. what i said to them is that it is important for the world community to work with the united nations and kofi annan on what is a political transition would look like. and my hope is is that we can have those conversations in the coming week or two. and that we can present to the world, but most importantly to the syrian people a pathway whereby this conflict can be resolved. but i don't think it would be fair to say that the russians and the chinese are signed on at this point. i think what is fair to say is that they recognize that the current situation is grave. it does not serve their interest. it certainly does not serve the interest of the syrian people and where we agree is that if
. the other is that the united states went into it iraq or afghanistan because it became the top foreign policy issue on which the demonstration saw a revolution. we can debate whether that was the right or wrong thing. many americans think it was the wrong thing. many think that nothing was resolved. that's a completely different question. i think the point for korea, i don't really think that the north korean issue has arisen to that level of priority for an administration. it has been a crisis that you want to solve at least in the sense of preventing it from becoming a bigger crisis to diplomacy, but the united states is directly when it has sought to solve a problem it has been willing to use both force and diplomacy to try to solve the problem. in the case of north korea that is just -- it is just not registering like that. we have had crises with north korea with success of the ministrations, and every demonstration has made the same calculation. i we willing to go all-out to the end to solve this or do we want a solution freeze it, cap d then move on to the other issues that most
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 6,899 (some duplicates have been removed)